As most military's over the world know what the A-10 can do, I would think they would like to see it disappear, those on the ground have a different opinion. On the ground, me personally, I would rather have a slow mover who can put the fear of God into an enemy by just the sound of her engines than a fast mover who has to circle around for another pass b/c he missed his targets. Once you hear those engines, you know your ***  is gone, as your brain goes back to that beauty firing that gun under her nose. My buddy puts it so nicely "No sweeter sound on the planet than that of the Hog's engines when your in trouble, coming to save your ***". As for the F15, yeah I saw that and was just as shocked as everyone else, that the pilot was still able to land her safely. But A-10 or F-15.... I'll take the A-10 any day of the week.  :smile:

Amen to that, Longhaul!

 

Looks like the DoD agrees with us...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/air-force-to-keep-a-10-flying/index.html

 

Alan   :smile:

It's officially back. What is dead cannot die:

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a23537/air-force-fires-up-depot-line-keep-a-10s-flying-indefinitely/?src=socialflowFB

Best decision all around. 

There simply is no replacement available for the ugly, slow, and nearly indestructible A-10.  Glad that it has been given another reprieve and an upgrade path.

Ideally what is now required is ,

1. A restart of the A-10 production line to replace these aging airframes .

2. Place the A-10 under the Army control , they are the prime user of it's services .

 

The modern USAF has gone mad with high tech aircraft that have a prohibitive unit cost , end result less aircraft .

Look at the tiny production numbers for the F-22 , B-2 , B-1 .

We are looking at unit costs of 100 to 500 million dollars each , the new bomber currently under development will end up

exceeding 500 million each .

The F-35 will probably end up exceeding 200 million each , as these costs are realised the production runs will reduce , that

has been a common historical fact for past types .

  While no doubt that the F-22 is good , there are only about 180 of them to cover the world , that's mission impossible .

 

You may notice that what is missing above , is the Black Ops aircraft , it will probably be a medium weight strike/bomber with

advanced features and capabilities , and a unit cost that would make your eyes water .

It is probably already flying and operational now .

 

It's abundantly clear that the USAF is putting all their eggs into High cost , High tech aircraft basket , so that will be where their

budget will be directed , the consequences of this is that unique aircraft such as the A-10 get side lined .

Placing the A-10 with the army ensures that troops in the field have that vital fire power to support and protect them .

 

Cheers

Karol 

 

While no doubt that the F-22 is good , there are only about 180 of them to cover the world , that's mission impossible .

 

Why should a USA fighter "cover the world"? If e.g. a russian person would say: "there are not enough Su-30 to cover the world", I guess you'd (rightly) label him as having ominous imperialistic views...

Karol,

 

Your Note # 2... "Place the A-10 under the Army control, they are the prime user of it's services..." is something that cannot happen, due to the Provisions of the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966, which is still in effect.

 

It's the reason why the US Air Force still transports the US Army to and fro, and why the Air Force doesn't have Helicopters...

 

Alan  :smile:

Hi Murmur

 

The F-22's role is to provide air cover where ever the USAF operates .

Bases and aircraft assets do operate fairly widely about the world , if need be they have to be protected .

The F-22 has already visited quite a few countries outside of the USA .

It's not about taking over and colonising countries , it's force projection and protection .

 

Hi Alan

 

The important aspect is that who ever operates the A-10 remains mindful that it provides protective

cover for ground troops .

What I mean is that it doesn't get lost in a big budget that might place emphasis on Fighters and Bombers ,

the USAF was subjected to budget cuts , and one of the areas that they chose to trim was the A-10 ,

in my opinion that was wrong , the A-10 really has unique troop support capabilities.

 

Cheers

Karol

Karol,

 

Your Note # 2... "Place the A-10 under the Army control, they are the prime user of it's services..." is something that cannot happen, due to the Provisions of the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966, which is still in effect.

 

It's the reason why the US Air Force still transports the US Army to and fro, and why the Air Force doesn't have Helicopters...

 

Alan  :smile:

Ding, ding, ding, ding!  We have a winner!  That is exactly why it will never happen.

Karol,

 

I agree with you totally; men with high ranks and even higher Pay Grades have Lightning II on the brain, surmising that the airplane is "the one plane that will do it all" while the MIC* continues to lobby for its Production and use, while trying to mothball every other platform the Lightning II is supposed to replace..

 

Bottom line? The Suits and JSC aren't in the mud, with RPG and 7.62 whizzing above their heads, praying for the right piece of equipment to place the right Ordinance on the Target.

 

Personally, I'd take the 'Hog any day of the Week, and twice on Sunday!

 

* MIC -- Military Industrial Complex

 

Alan  :smile:

Not only did the A-10 get a reprieve, but the old O-10 Bronco got back into the fight!!

 

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Navy-Mounts-Broncos-To-Fight-ISIL-225868-1.html

The F-35 is tax payer money WASTED.  The A-10 is an amazing platform that terrifies our enemies and it does well in it's role as a CAS work horse.   Beauty is in the eye of the behold I guess.   I think this plane is gorgeous in the same way a US Muscle Car is gorgeous!   

The A-10 is probably the best platform for the CAS role ever, it does though require a secure airspace to operate in. Up till now the US have enjoyed such an environment, being able to defeat the air defenses of it's current adversaries. With Russia now involved with air support and installation of advanced SAM systems like the SA-300's, this may no longer be true. In such an environment the A-10 vulnerabilities because of it's slow speed would be exploited, and would no longer be able to operate as effectively.

That just makes no sense. There really isn't any realistic scenario where a need for CAS exists within such strongly denied airspace. If such denial is in effect, the entire effort will be to rollback the enemy's air defenses with the appropriate assets. Not until that succeeds and air superiority is achieved would we or should we place troops at risk into that space. The kinds of wars we actually have the will to fight and will continue to fight indefinitely will still only be the wars of choice against a militarly weak and assymmetric adversary. Those kinds of wars require an aircraft like the A-10 that can perform the kinetic task economically more than anything else. If we start using F-35s in those kinds of wars, we will easily lose merely by the unequal economic exchange.